The use of inflatable packaging systems for cushioning and thermally protecting items during storage or transport has been slowly finding increased acceptance in the market place. Such packaging systems include those described in my co-pending allowed U.S. patent application, Ser. No. 092,750 and further in pending application Ser. No. 08/344,109 as well as those by Elkin et al. in U.S. Pat. No. 5,263,587, by Soroka et al. in U.S. Pat. No. 4,465,188, by Pharo in U.S. Pat. No. 5,272,856, and Cope in U.S. Pat. No. 4,877,334. Overall, the primary benefits of such systems over conventional polystyrene packaging include their extremely low storage volume, the low resource costs involved in making the systems, and the ease with which such systems made of high and low density polyethylene can be recycled through diffuse community recycling channels.
Although inflatable packaging systems offer tremendous economic and environmental benefits, there are serious difficulties with using such systems which make them less attractive than alternative polystyrene packaging systems in most applications.
Some of the inherent draw-backs of such inflatable packaging systems compared to use of polystyrene "peanuts" involves the associated extra steps of inserting an item within the inflatable package, filling the package with air, and, in some cases, placing the package within an external box or envelope, and further sealing the box. Use of polystyrene "peanuts" involves simply placing an item within a box, pouring the desired amount of "peanuts" inside the box, and sealing the box. In addition, while polystyrene can be used with any box or item size, inflatable packaging systems must be specifically sized for both the item-to-be-packaged as well as the external shipping or storage container.
Problems associated with using inflatable packaging systems at both manual and automated levels of use exist. At the manual level, difficulties associated with filling inflatable packages with air are most common. As a primary difficulty to using such systems manually by consumers, most individuals are unfamiliar with the flutter valves usually integrated into such systems. Common mistakes in filling involve failing to locate the valve, failing to separate and pull the valve open before filling, and further failing to inflate the package to appropriate pressure levels. Such difficulties in use only deter further acceptance of inflatable packaging systems at the consumer level.
When using inflatibles in high volume manual applications, continuous filling through the valve with an air hose or similar system proves to be a very awkward and tiresome procedure. In addition, in such high volume manual uses, the need to select the appropriately sized inflatable package and box for each product is extremely time consuming and frustrating for an operator.
Difficulties associated with using inflatable packaging in automated systems are also wide spread. In automated high speed systems which involve packaging multiple-sized items, difficulties in the automated selection of the appropriate inflatable and exterior container evolve as well as the associated problems of maintaining multiple inventory levels for various inflatibles and their corresponding boxes.
Another draw-back of using the permanent envelope style inflatable packages in automated systems, such as those by Soroka et al. in U.S. Pat. No. 4,465,188, by Pharo in U.S. Pat. No. 5,272,856, and Cope in U.S. Pat. No. 4,877,334, is the inherent complication of having to insert the item-to-be-shipped within the package. Such insertion process requires expensive film and product handling equipment and can result in damaging the package through friction with the object. One example of an automated system for packaging items with an inflatable permanent envelope style package is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,597, 244.
The problems associated with using permanent envelope style packages can be avoided by placing the item-to-be-shipped upon the packaging and further folding the package around the product. Although both my inventions of co-pending patent applications U.S. Ser. No. 092,750 as well as Elkin et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,263,587 can be used in such a folding procedure, Elkin's non-centralized double port filling requirement does not lend itself to use within an automated folding machine. Further, custom sizing of a given foldable package within an automated system can be easily accomplished using my said inventions and the centralized valve thereof on the package, and all sides of the flat form can be shortened without changing the functional structure of the package.